> > If anyone wants to focus, I'd suggest looking at the stuff on RDF
>> entailment. Here's a question that occurred to me, for example.
>> Suppose we know that
>> aaa rdf:type bbb .
>> and also
>> bbb rdfs:subClassOf ccc .
>> Now, it follows that aaa is in fact a member of the class ccc; but do
>> we want to say that this means that
>> aaa rdf:type ccc
>>
>> must be true? If we do, that table of RDF entailment rules would need
>> some more entries. Right now it reflects the view that being in a
>> class doesn't necessarily mean having that class as a type, only
>> having some subclass of it as a type.
>
>so far, I was assuming yes (to your question)
>and I thought you expressed that in the second last
>entry of your table for RDFS entailment, no?
>or (in notation 3)
> { ?x a ?C. ?C rdfs:subClassOf ?D } log:implies { ?x a ?D }.
>and similarly for rdfs:subPropertyOf
> { ?s ?p ?o. ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf ?q } log:implies { ?s ?q ?o }.
>I just see a typo in entry 2: BBB or bbb
Yes, there were a bunch of typos like that which are now fixed, I
hope. Try again in a few hours or tomorrow.
Pat
>
>--
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.eduhttp://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes